Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Kandhari Beverages Ltd on 8 April, 2008
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO.II
E/Appeal No.4013/06-SM
(Arising out of order in appeal No.861/CE/Chd/06 dated 21.9.06 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.P.K. Das, Member(Judicial))
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the
order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the
Departmental authorities?
______________________________________________________
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
(Rep. by Shri B.S. Suhag, DR)
Vs
M/s Kandhari Beverages Ltd Respondent
(Rep. by Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate) Coram: Honble Mr P.K. Das, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing: 8.4.08 Final Order No. /2008-SM(BR) Per P.K. Das:
Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The issue involved in this case is as to whether payment under Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, for clearance of input/capital goods as such would be payable at the time of clearance on fortnightly/monthly basis under Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules.
3. I find that the issue is settled by the decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the respondents, as under:-
a) Grasim Industries Ltd Vs CCE Indore 2003 (155) ELT 200
b) Apar Industries Ltd Vs CCE Mumbai 2008 (84) RLT 59
c) Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd & Another Vs CCE Bhopal 2008 (85) RLT 280
4. The relevant portion of the decision of Apar Industries Ltd (Supra) is reproduced below:-
It is seen that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by series of judgments of the Tribunal. The recent judgment in the case of CCE, Raigad Vs Cadila Healthcare Ltd. as reported in 2007 (79) RLT 300 (CESTAT-Mum) 2007 (TIOL) 300 CESTAT-Mum. It was held that:-
I find that the issue is no more res integra and stands decided by the Tribunal decision in the case of KLRF Textiles Vs CCE, Tirunelveli 2005 (188)ELT 169 (Tri.-Chennai). It has been held in the said case that fortnightly facility to pay duty in terms of the Rule 8 is available even in respect of removal of modvatable inputs from the factory. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Raigad Vs Savita Polymers Ltd 2006 TIOL-1463-CESAT-MUM. As such, inasmuch as the credit stands reversed within a fortnight from the date of removal, confirmation of interest has been rightly set side by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue stands rejected.
5. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(P.K. Das)
MPS* Member(Judicial)